Dear Diary is Michigan's Biggest Rival

Programming Note: No Dear Diary next week unless you guys spend Christmas making diaries or something.

Trevor Miller of Hammer and Rails this week queried the bloggerati of ESDBS's boards to create a programming schedule for a fictional BTN2. Among shows like Hoarders: Jim Delaney Edition and a thing where Rutgers fans run around Manhattan trying to find someone who knows they exist, there was this idea:

11-midnight - "Why We’re Your Rival, Now." - Each school gets to explain why they are a Most Hated Rival of another.

I pointed out in the MGoBoard discussion that this would quickly turn into a Jerry Springer episode where Michigan's in the chair while they keep trotting out progressively more disgusting ladies who say they're our girlfriends.

That thread was perhaps was the impetus behind MGoSoftball embarking on a quest to ask every Big Ten (plus Notre Dame) blog to rank their rivalries. I'm excited for the results, though I don't think any fanbase is truly united on this front. For example Brian would put Notre Dame 2nd, while I think he needs to step outside of WTKA's signal for a day and see what's it like among the Sparties. One man's Michigan rivalric rundown:

Schools who aren't rivals but we have that one thing we'll never agree on to provide an infinite hate well: Nebraska ('97 N.C.), Tennessee ('97 Heisman), Penn State (JoePa, and because we each find each others' fans completely insufferable).

Rivals only in the sense that one can be rivals with a paraplegic neighbor who's always asking you to punch him in the face: Eastern Michigan

Hey, you forgetting someone? Like YOUR BIGGEST RIVAL who you got players suspended for and beat you that one time with a totally unsuspected onside kick???: …? On to the diaries. Where there were only three diaries, plus something I bumped from the boards, and they're all still on top. On to the rest of the board.

On that last, a suggestion for those about to start threads they think will be unpopular: don't lead with "I know you're all going to neg me for this," or by telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're Brian Cook's sheeple. Make your points, address only the best possible form of the opposing argument, and then stand by to politely debate your assertions, being ready to modify, improve, or even back off your position if you get stumped. Cypress has a valid argument that maybe we've been too hard on Dave Brandon for turning our favorite amateur team into the 2nd biggest franchise in college athletics, since all of those nickels and dimes are building cathedrals for sports most schools can't afford to carry (and consequently giving M the inside track for the Directors Cup). But then the OP's presentation of that argument is overly contentious. It's exactly this kind of contempt for people with other opinions that makes the difference between a great debate thread and a messy flame war the moderators have to clean up.

THE THING I BUMPED FROM THE BOARDS

Your diarist of the week is Asgardian for picking through the last four classes worth of Rivals rankings to find positional trends in who gets the higher stars. For some reason Midwest offensive linemen are getting proportionally higher rankings. It could just be the biases of recruiting analysts who think skill players have to come from the Southeast (imagine the difference in Toussaint hype if he was from Florida instead of Ohio) or it could be they're sick of Iowa and Wisconsin consistently pumping out NFL linemen from guys they rated a 2 or 3, and are making an adjustment. I'd like to see the sample extended back to 2002.

[After the jump, NCAA may be letting Oregon off the hook or taking the first steps towards finally nailing Ohio State for the stuff everyone knows about, and I seriously consider buying something Brian is totally going to make fun of me for.]

I'd say it's awesome but then a flat-brim hat with the sticker still on it appears. Don't put those on your heads, people; that's how the stupid gets in! (This message brought to you by the Class of '02, aka the bar hat generation).

NCAA REGULATION AT THE CROSSROADS

Erik_in_Dayton (one of my favorite posters) put up a thread discussing the latest from the NCAA's case against Oregon. The Ducks apparently changed something that means "they didn't collect" to "they didn't send" where the 'they' is now the scouting service instead of Oregon. The NCAA apparently found this version of events pretty quack (HA!) and is ordering a full hearing. MGoBloggers know how this ends. Pkatz:

Oregon sez: we did nothing, NCAA

NCAA sez: Oregon, you are full of shit

And response from Colt McBaby Jesus:

You forgot this part:

NCAA sez: Oregon, you are full of shit, but we don't have much evidence, nobody is willing to talk to us and we can't make them. Your punishment will be very small, but we all know there was more than what you get punished for.

That's pretty cynical Michigan fans. I wonder how we got that way…oh right. To that end, there's a react thread to NCAA firing a (-n OSU alum) lead investigator for apparently Mark Fuhrmaning the UCLA case. I guess if you want to jump to insane conclusions at ludicrous speed this could mean they finally found the Buckeye sleeper agent in their ranks who was hiding all the incriminating files against Ohio State in the floor of her office, and that the years of incompetence from that department are at an end. Or it could mean there was this one naïve heroine out there trying to actually bring schools to justice and the powers that be silenced her. Or it could mean someone Fuhrmaned an investigation and was canned for it.

THIS CHARITY HAS TO BE TAKING PEDs OR SOMETHING Update on Zoltan's foundation, which raised $5k for a children's hospital. I reiterate: athletes' foundations never get this successful this quickly—Mesko and partner Tim North are really doing something over there.

Speaking of huge charitable guys, did anyone else catch this from Chantel's story…

And sometimes, seeing them is all she's able to do. When she's at her sickest, Faith is on "contact precautions," meaning the only people allowed in the room are those deemed as essential: doctors, nurses, parents.

On those days, Omameh ropes up several football players to stand outside the window and have dance competitions.

Faith will say Omameh is the best dancer, with a bit of bias, but defensive lineman Craig Roh and safety Jordan Kovacs aren't far behind.

He started going as a freshman when Moosman roped him into it.

ETC. Folks shared some of the ads they're seeing and I noted which ones were direct versus network—if you're getting something that references an odd proclivity that's the network optimizing to your searches and you probably don't want to tell us about it. Or do tell us about it, after all this is how we discovered somebody was breaking into Heiko's lab and using his computer to search for Argentinian cosplay porn. Need a better photo for a caption contest. Trey Burke nickname suggestions. In re #5 from this Cracked article umjgheitma highlighted, I've heard from a former Michigan D-I linemen that it's quite common for guys to be singing to themselves during trench battles (Bud Kaminski singing "Little Doggies" in The Program is a reference to that.) Mealer and his beard graduate.

Your moment of zen:

Are we big enough yet with our #2 ranking in basketball, and restoring the proper order in football, and in remaining better and more relevant in all things, to finally be above taking pleasure in petty Spartanfreude? HAIL no!

That's basketball uberrecruit Jabari Parker picking Duke when all the Sparties were sure they'd get him. RCMB react is…sanguine. Damn you rival program that's been a consistent national power so long that your fans instantly move on from Pryor-level recruiting disappointments. Sorry this sucks as a zen moment—unfortunately Brian turned down my suggestion of side-by-side react videos of him watching 2girls1cup and Kovacs in an 11 jersey showing off the new uniforms.

First, I'd like to share that long before I became a Wolverine, I had a deep respect for the university and what it represented. Tradition, and continuity, and a no-nonsense attitude were a big part of that. To me, back then, the culture of the university was embodied in the t-shirt that seemed to dominate the fanbase, even in Texas: maize, block MICHIGAN across the chest of a blue shirt. Straight across. Not even curved. You know who are.

MICHIGAN didn't need a loony-tune character or a snarling, befangled bearcat with flames shooting out of its eyes to draw attention. It was MICHIGAN, fergodsakes. Look it up.

To me, it seems the parade of jerseys (and other attempts to monetize everything) is out of character. It cheapens the Michigan brand. It's trying too hard. It's the difference between calmly walking off the court after draining the game-winning 3-pointer and jumping up and down and shrieking and peeing your pants. We've done this before. In fact, we wrote the book on how to be a successful "public ivy" university. Our attempts to grab attention in the football uniformz fashion contest is cheap, and out of place.

That said, I have to seriously disagree with those who oppose the "new" helmet. A matte finish does not a new helmet make. Helmets have changed dramatically in the 100+ years of Michigan football. It's the Maize wings and three stripes on a blue background that make it the same. It's not like we're going to insist on wearing leather helmets in 2013 just for the sake of refusing change.

I see what you're saying about the helmets, the color combinations are the same just a different "finish" to them. I hear ya. I think that the fear is that one step leads to more, which obviously the alternative jersey's have gone way too far.

Is the Jug the only reason the Golden Gophers are on this list? Minnesota isn't strong enough to be a real rival for us, nor have I ever seen anything like the hate for Minnesota amongst Michigan fans as that for OSU, ND, and MSU. I'd even say Wisconsin is closer to a real rivalry than Minnesota.

Also, your statement that Brian should consider how Sparty hates us before putting ND in front of them doesn't make sense. That makes us a bigger rival for them, not them a bigger rival for us.

On Minny: Yeah the jug and the history it represents. Old rivalries don't die unless one of the participants does (see Chicago, University of). Part of Michigan and Minnesota fandom is recognizing that the past matters. Every rivalry doesn't have to be all about mutual hate--that's the kind of thinking that has led people from one of the smallest states and most irrelevant states in the country to convince themselves people care about their in-state rivalry.

On Sparty, see if you can follow me. Sparties oversettle certain parts of Michigan, develop huge inferiority complex that leads to hate. Their hate leads them to do whatever they can to make life just as much a living hell for Michigan fans as it is for them. Michigan fans grow to resent this constant assault on their happiness and well being. This is packaged into a trophy the governor once bought in a schlock store in cottage country and subsequently foisted unto the in-state rivalry when his wife says she'll put that in her house over her dead body.

Seriously we pretend to be indifferent to MSU but any board post about MSU instantly puts the lie to that. Meanwhile Notre Dame is so reciprocal of our rivalry that they're canceling it early so they can keep playing Purdue and Stanford every year.

I think Notre Dame is completely reciprocal of our rivalry in an emotional sense. However, rivalries have taken a backseat to conference expansion, recruiting, and the big money grab that is college football in recent years. For example, Nebraska left many Big XII rivals because they saw more financial potential in the B1G. However, I don't think you would hear any Cornhusker say that they didn't feel strongly about the Texas or Oklahoma rivlaries as a result.

Likewise, Notre Dame had to make tough decisions balancing current rivalries, exposure in CA, non-ACC schedule strength, etc., and dropping Michigan was simply collateral damage in doing what they felt was best for the future of their program. I think Dave Brandon would have dropped Notre Dame if he felt there was something to be gained by doing it, even if it was simply ensuring that M's non-conference schedule wasn't the Bataan Death March every season where at least one loss would almost be assured. For example, a non-conf schedule of USC, Stanford, Notre Dame, and a Purdue-quality team would be overly brutal and sub-optimal in today's cfb environment.

I guess I see what you mean about Minny. But respecting the history of a rivalry doesn't necessarily make it a current rival. At the very least there is a massive gap between the rivalries we have with the top 3 on that list and Minny. Minnesota would need a period of sustained success (seems unlikely) and even then I find it hard to imagine getting as worked up for that game as the others (although maybe when ND goes away Minnesota will replace them in our hearts).

As for MSU, I can imagine that being more pronounced if you remain a Michigan resident after graduating, but other than this recent stretch (where if we didn't finally beat them this year, things were gonna start getting really messy), for the most part I know few people who care anywhere near as much about the MSU game as about the ND game (and the fact that the MSU game is a conference game makes that fact even more significant.

And yes, Denard in a Mets jersey and Wright in Michigan blue is an image to cherish. I have it as my avi just so I have an excuse to look at it occasionally.

...all these crazy uniforms in the past two years were Dave Brandon's attempt to actually preserve the Michigan brand through some tough times? Think about it, in the past Michigan has been this hardnose football powerhouse that obliterates any competition. Although we may be returning to that prominence I don't think any of us can say we are quite there yet. So why not wear the traditional uniforms when we are doing exactly what Michigan has always been recognized for (a 45-0 drubbing of Illinois) and then pull out some futuristic space-cop pajamas for games that aren't exactly in our favor (bama, probably SC). Sure we pulled out ND and VT, but I don't think anyone actually expected us to win those games. Just saying, that 41-14 whomping would have been a little harder for me to stomach if we were wearing the traditional blue. Just some food for thought, I still think the Germans should stick to designing soccer uniforms.

I really based this off of the two Princeton grads I know, both of whom get pissed off every time we glory in our awesome helmets, which Crisler had first in Jersey. To which I reply they didn't wear them for 50 years. If you graduated in '98, that was also the year the Tigers brought the wings back, so maybe it became a thing after you left? The alums who made up my 2-person non-random sample were both '02.

They still had the boring old Penn-State-like (but black & orange) helmets when I was there. In fact, I wasn't even aware that Crisler had used the winged design at Princeton until they brought it back. Needless to say, this does not equate to true hatred in my book. Interesting that your friends find this so infuriating.

The worst Michigan-Princeton interaction I can come up with is U-M beating Princeton in the first round of the NCAA Hockey Tourney back in '98--it was Princeton's first-ever tourney berth, but Michigan beat them 3-2 (in Ann Arbor) and went on to the National Championship. Old news now.

I love the matte blue on the helmets. If we could keep the jerseys consistently basic, I'd vote to keep the matte blue/gloss maize helmets for good. They set off the helmet's defining characteristic - the maize wings - in a much stronger starker way. Gloss up the wings, matte down the blue. Phenominal.

It's the constantly evolving and multitudinous jerseys that drive me crazy. We're a tradition program and it's not the time to stop acting like one. I understand that the evolution of athletic gear might mean we have to choose some sort of jazzed up kit, so do the minimum. Nike's flywire metallic stitching at all the seams in the same color as the dominant material would look sharp. No need for any of the distracting two-tone, piping, winged BS on the jerseys.

So when it comes to style points on the field (and on the racks at Moe's), we should just be Alabama and Penn State but better. Our jerseys have always, and always will, look best when they're starkly basic. That's how it is with tradition. Away unis should be white with blue numbers, stitched with maize, little bitty Block M on the collar. Maize pants. Blue block M on the right hip. Done. Aside from stitching, no other embellishment. Matte helmets all around.

Last point: we all know that even the ugliest jerseys will fly off the racks so long as the teams playing in them win games. That's what I hate most about overly marketed 'legacy' or one-off jerseys. It means we need a sales gimick. It shows no faith in the power of winning to sell your program's merch. At worst, it shows no faith in the team.

I agree with almost everything you said, except the last sentence. I don't think its a lack of faith in the team as it is more of a blatant and overt money grabbing exercise that leverages the team's success beyond the barriers of taste and tradition.

I actually despise Notre Dame more than even Ohio State but I want to beat Ohio State more if that makes any sense.

I can't stand the people, especially in Michigan, who are Notre Dame fans because "Oh hey we are Irish!" or "Oh hey! We're Catholic too!" Or even..."remember Rudy? Good movie." That combined with their incredible arrogance, Lou Holtz, Charlie Weis, their AD and president, their independence in football that they cherish, their handling of Declan Sullivan, and them being constantly overrated over the years. I wish constant suffering on the Notre Dame football program.

Ohio State I just want to beat but unlike Notre Dame or Michigan State I want them to do well the rest of the season. I want them to be the number 2 to our number 1. Plenty of reasons I can't stand them either but just a bit less than the ones I have for Notre Dame.

I have very similar feelings about ND and Ohio...but for me, switch msu and ND's positions in how well they do. I honestly am okay with ND doing well just as long as we beat them. They do have an arrogance, but I think the tradition their program is built on is noteworthy, even if it isn't very recent. Completely agree with your assessment of the other things you mentioned. But the difference for me with regards to msu is I hate their recent arrogance with regards to their 4 yr win streak and their consistent hatred and disrespect for all things Michigan. I wish I could root for then when they're not playing Michigan, but honestly...I just can't.

Side note: I've met Rudy...the real Rudy. He was a very nice guy, so...there's that.

I think it depends on where you live and who you most interect with. I live in southwest Ohio and have to put up with bucknuts. I really root hard in that game. Not many spartins or nd fans here. My brother lives in Michigan with a lot of MSU fans and that is his most important game. Same with a friend in Indiana.

...Notre Dame is the only team that I really come close to "hating." Between the fawning NBC coverage and their annoying fight song with that dancing fucking leprechaun mascot, anytime we are losing to them it feels like absolute hell.

Aside from the NCAA violation stuff, I don't really have a problem with OSU because they need to be successful in order to have a proper rivalry.

I'd also consider USC to be a big rival because frankly there's almost nothing sweeter than actually beating them in the Rose Bowl because it almost never happens. Although I would consider the 1997 season to be about 99% perfect, the missing 1% from my perspective is not the fact that Nebraska snagged a peice of the mythical national championship, it's the fact that we didn't beat USC in the Rose Bowl that leaves that season just a hair short of heavenly perfection. But it's such a minor nitpick that I try not to dwell on it.

I'd like to add to your list of rivalries under the category "One-way hate: us" -- Mike Farrell, @rivalsmike. I would say the feeling is mutual, but I'm pretty sure he hates the world including himself!

On that last, a suggestion for those about to start threads they think will be unpopular: don't lead with "I know you're all going to neg me for this," or by telling everyone who disagrees with you that they're Brian Cook's sheeple. Make your points, address only the best possible form of the opposing argument, and then stand by to politely debate your assertions, being ready to modify, improve, or even back off your position if you get stumped. Cypress has a valid argument that maybe we've been too hard on Dave Brandon for turning our favorite amateur team into the 2nd biggest franchise in college athletics, since all of those nickels and dimes are building cathedrals for sports most schools can't afford to carry (and consequently giving M the inside track for the Directors Cup). But then the OP's presentation of that argument is overly contentious. It's exactly this kind of contempt for people with other opinions that makes the difference between a great debate thread and a messy flame war the moderators have to clean up.

Is just 100% right. I have no problems with people taking opposing views. In fact, that's what makes message boards what they are; a place to share opinions and debate. That OP had a lot of good points, but he also had things in there that I knew were going to raise the ire of other posters, beyond just disagreement. It was asking to be a flamefest, rather than something that devolves into a flamefest, something that happens from time to time. If you're going to start a thread, whether you are linking an article or are sharing an opinion, you've got to do it right, taking a fair stance without the contemptuous remarks. Threads like the one you linked are the ones where you might want to post, but you've already seen the flamewar started, and you don't want to get in the middle of that duel.